<rho 


tv  ><3t   rjove  ' 


By 

•Toseph    B.    Felt 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNSA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


WHO 


IFIRST    GOYERNOR 


MASSACHUSETTS? 


BY    JOSEPH    B.   FELT. 


Veritatis  simplex  oratio  cst. — SENECA. 

Shall  truth  fail  to  keep  her  word, 
Justice  divine  not  hasten  to  be  just  ? 

MILTON. 


BOSTON: 

PRESS   OF   T.   R.   MARVIN,  42   CONGRESS   STREET. 
1853. 


\4 

X 


WHO  WAS  THE  FIRST  GOVERNOR 


MASSACHUSETTS? 


,r 


To  differ  in  opinion,  on  this  or  other  topics  of  inquiry, 
especially  with  those  noted  for  their  talents  and  acquirements, 
is  always  attended  with  unpleasant  associations  and  feelings. 
Still  it  is  the  lot  of  human  imperfection,  and  unavoidable 
in  the  discussion  of  sentiments  and  opinions  honestly  enter- 
tained. 

The  occasion  of  the  question  just  submitted  is  a  note  re- 
cently published  by  the  Hon.  James  Savage,  in  his  second 
edition  of  Winthrop's  Journal.  This  note  is  printed  on  pages 
200  to  203  inclusive,  of  the  second  volume.  It  contains  an 
argument  against  some  remarks  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
Annals  of  Salem,  which  advocate  the  position  that  Endicott 
preceded  Winthrop  as  the  proper  Governor  of  this  Com- 
monwealth. It  advances  and  debates  two  prominent  ideas, 
which,  as  the  writer  thinks,  call  for  examination.  One  is,  that 
the  comparison  between  the  source  of  Carver's  trust  as  chief 
magistrate  of  Plymouth  Colony,  and  that  of  Endicott's,  is 
incorrect.  Another,  that  because  the  latter  person  held  office 
under  those  of  the  Company  of  Massachusetts,  who  resided  in 
England,  he  was,  therefore,  no  Governor,  in  1629,  in  the  right 
acceptation  of  the  word. 

We  will  endeavor  to  take  a  fair  view  of  these  two  subjects, 
in  the  order  already  presented. 

With  regard  to  the  comparison,  the  maker  of  it  intended  by 
it  neither  more  nor  less,  than  relative  authority  for  offices, 
designated  by  the  like  names.  His  language  was:  "The  rule, 

:  558(501!! 


4 

which  required  John  Carver  to  be  accounted  Governor  of 
Plymouth,  gives  Mr.  Endicott  similar  precedency  to  Mr. 
Winthrop."  That  we  may  perceive  more  fully  the  force  of 
this  remark,  we  will  glance  at  the  newly  arrived  Pilgrims  on 
the  coast,  which  they  concluded  to  adopt  as  their  refuge  from 
the  trials  of  the  Old  World.  They  had  no  more  authority  for 
their  plantation,  government  and  protection,  than  the  Patent, 
received  from  the  Company  of  North  and  South  Virginia,  by 
John  Wincob  in  his  own  name,  who,  to  their  deep  regret,  was 
unable  to  take  passage  with  them.  The  main  cause  of  their 
having  no  better  warrant  to  occupy  territory  on  our  shores, 
was  the  opposition  of  the  King  and  his  prominent  supporters, 
to  the  encouragement  of  dissenters  in  any  part  of  his  dominions. 
Such  a  document  was  no  more  available  for  their  purposes, 
than  the  subsequent  one,  taken  out  by  John  Pierce,  and  termed 
a  "Deed  Pole,"  from  the  Company  of  New  England,  and  sold 
by  him,  at  an  exorbitant  advance,  to  the  adventurers  for  the 
Colony,  in  1623,  after  he  had  unsuccessfully  striven  to  hold 
the  settlers  here  as  tenants  at  his  will.  It  was  of  less  force  and 
worth  than  the  Patent,  obtained  from  the  same  authorities,  in 
1(330,  which  the  rulers  of  Plymouth  Plantation  considered — as 
is  plain  from  their  several  earnest  petitions  to  the  throne,  until 
the  Usurpation — as  not  near  so  valuable  for  securing  their 
privileges,  as  the  Charter  of  our  Commonwealth,  under  the 
directions  of  which  Endicott  was  elected  Governor  in  1629. 

The  intimation,  that  the  contract,  signed  by  Carver  and  his 
associates,  was  sufficient  to  endow  him  with  the  full  honor  and 
responsibilities  of  a  chief  magistrate,  while  the  instrument, 
which  authorized  Endicott  to  sustain  a  similar  relation  to  the 
people  with  him,  could  not  place  him  upon  an  equal  footing 
with  the  former,  may  be  judged  of  by  the  conduct  of  the 
Pilgrims  themselves.  The  anxious  and  protracted  efforts, 
which  they  made  before  their  embarkation  from  Leyden,  to 
obtain  even  their  first  Patent,  materially  defective  as  it  was, 
shows  how  very  reluctant  they  were  to  be  compelled,  when 
arrived  at  their  new  abode  in  America,  to  adopt  the  last  resort 
of  self-constituted  government.  It  is  evident  to  me,  that  they 
would  have  much  preferred,  that  Carver  should  be  placed  over 
them  by  authority  of  their  own  Company,  like  that  which 
promoted  Endicott,  than  by  that  which  they  were  forced  to 


create  through  absolute,  unsought  and  unwelcome  necessity. 
Besides,  Carver  was  no  less  dependent  on  the  will  of  the 
immigrants,  who  placed  him  at  the  head  of  their  affairs,  than 
Endicott  was  on  that  of  his  fellow  members  of  the  Corporation, 
who  voted  that  the  supreme  care  of  their  colony  should  be 
committed  tp  him. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  is  there  any  inaccuracy  in 
the  foregoing  quotation  ?  The  meaning  of  it  is  plainly,  that  if 
Carver's  forty  associates  chose  him  for  their  head,  without  con- 
stitutional power  from  any  charter  from  the  Crown,  or  wjthout 
any  Patent,  in  the  general  name  of  their  Company,  from  the 
Corporation  of  North  and  South  Virginia,  and  he  might,  under 
such  circumstances  be  rightfully  entitled  Governor  in  advance 
of  Bradford, — there  is  full  as  much  propriety,  to  say  the  least, 
that  Endicott,  chosen  by  freemen  or  members  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Company,  among  whom  he  held  a  prominent  stand, 
assembled  in  General  Court,  in  London,  and  under  royal  sanc- 
tion, to  be  their  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth, — should  be 
alike  entitled  precedently  to  Winthrop.  It  seems  to  me  in- 
capable of  candid  and  true  contradiction,  that  the  comparison 
was  and  is  pertinent  and  correct  in  its  application,  and  that 
both  cases,  considered  as  to  the  sources  whence  the  power  of 
governing  was  derived,  are  the  same  in  a  corporate  kind,  though 
diverse  in  degree,  and  that  it  is  much  more  in  favor  of 
Endicott  than  of  Carver,  though  I  believe  that  the  latter 
may  justly  hold  his  rank  as  the  first  and  chief  ruler  of  the 
Pilgrims. 

We  will  next  consider  the  position,  that  because  Endicott 
was  appointed  chief  magistrate  for  our  colony,  by  members  of 
the  Company,  convened  in  London,  in  1629,  still  this  consti- 
tuted him  no  Governor  in  the  true  acceptation  of  the  term. 

For  an  intelligent  settlement  of  this  point,  much  depends 
on  the  right  interpretation  of  the  word  denoting  such  an  officer 
of  state.  A  few  late  writers  have  had  printed  in  their  works 
the  very  expressions  of  the  General  Court  in  England,  which 
inform  us  in  the  most  direct  and  plainest  style,  that  they 
elected  Endicott  as  their  colonial  Governor ;  and  at  the  same 
time  these  authors,  while  denying  that  lie  fully  sustained  such 
a  relation,  have  utterly  omitted  to  tell  their  readers  what  mean- 
ing they  attach  to  their  negation.  They  cannot  justly  complain 


6 

if  those  who  trace  their  course  suppose  that  the  paramount 
reason  why  they  have  gone  thus  far,  and  then  failed  to  guide 
inquirers  further,  as  they  were  bound  to  do,  is  that  they  could 
not  proceed  with  satisfaction  to  themselves,  and  much  less  to 
those  who  are  convinced  that  their  whole  direction,  so  far  as 
away  from  the  plain  landmark  set  up  by  the  phraseology  of  the 
court,  just  referred  to,  is  totally  unauthorized.  The  general 
drift  of  their  remarks  that  Governor,  in  reference  to  Endicott, 
means  something  lower  than  the  standing  of  such  an  officer, 
who  is  allowed  his  full  rank,  and  there  leaving  the  mind  which 
desires  to  ascertain  the  proportion  and  particulars  of  such  de- 
duction in  utter  darkness,  may  lead  to  bewilder,  but  is  far  from 
being  acceptable  to  every  person  who  would  know  the  whole 
truth. 

It  would  afford  much  pleasure  to  the  writer,  could  he  per- 
ceive that  the  position  of  Mr.  Savage,  under  this  head,  was 
entirely  free  from  the  deficiency  just  mentioned.  After  adduc- 
ing several  passages  from  the  charter,  to  show  that  Endicott 
held  his  trust  from  the  Company  at  home,  he  quotes  as  follows, 
from  the  same  document :  "  The  authority,  office  and  power, 
before  given  to  the  former  governor,  deputy,  etc.,  in  whose 
stead  or  place  new  shall  be  so  chosen,  shall,  as  to  him  and 
them,  and  every  of  them,  cease  and  determine."  These  words, 
as  they  evidently  appear  to  me,  have  an  immediate  appli- 
cation to  the  succession  of  the  Company's  officers  in  England, 
and  the  consequent  surrender  of  their  respective  trusts.  I  do 
not  understand  that  they  have  any  direct  bearing  upon  colonial 
officers.  Mr.  Savage  places  the  subsequent  phrase,  directly 
after  the  close  of  them,  "  These  last  words  settle  the  business." 
If  such  a  settlement  mean,  which  is  what  I  comprehend  by  it, 
that  Endicott  was  Governor  here  in  1029,  by  election  of  the 
company  in  London,  and  thus  subordinate  to  them,  it  entirely 
harmonizes  with  my  own  views,  and  I  do  not  recollect  ever 
having  heard  it  denied. 

It  is  true  of  him,  and  of  all  regular  Governors.  None  of 
them  can  or  ever  could  assert,  that  they  do  not  or  did  not 
possess  their  power  subordinalely,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
according  to  its  origin.  Were  it  a  fact,  that  on  account  of  such 
subordinacy  no  man  chosen  under  it  ever  was  or  ever  could  be 
a  proper  Governor,  the  issue  of  the  present  instance  would  be 


closed  ;  the  matter  would  be  settled,  and  to  raise  any  query 
about  it,  would  be  indeed  "  an  idle  question."  But  the  truth 
in  the  premises  assumes,  to  my  apprehension,  a  very  different 
aspect. 

The  subordinacy  under  consideration  may  be  corporate,  regal 
or  popular.  Of  course  there  is  no  need  for  us  to  observe,  ex- 
cept to  meet  objections  occasionally  thrown,  as  dust,  into  our 
eyes,  so  that  we  may  not  see  our  way  clearly,  that  the  term 
denoting  such  chief  magistrate,  does  not  signify  a  tutor,  as 
Locke  used  it  in  his  treatise  on  education,  nor  pilot  of  a  ship, 
as  the  Apostle  James  applied  it,  nor  president  of  a  bank,  nor 
superintendent  of  a  hospital,  etc.,  as  not  unfrequently  used  in 
the  parlance  of  England.  The  definition  of  Governor,  as 
exemplified  and  verified  in  the  history  of  our  country,  may 
be  learned  from  its  several  administrations  of  government. 
While  different  sections  of  it  were  owned  and  controlled  by 
companies  in  Europe,  and  afterwards  to  some  extent  in  this 
land,  they  exercised  a  corporate  power  in  the  choice  of  their 
Governors  for  their  respective  colonies.  When  these  came 
under  provincial  rule,  the  Kings  of  England  appointed  such 
officers  at  their  own  pleasure.  When  they  were  made  inde- 
pendent of  the  crown,  the  people  elected  these  magistrates. 
All  these  elections  were  made  on  principles,  as  laid  down  in 
patents,  charters  and  constitutions.  Here  we  have  a  practical 
idea  of  what  Governors  have  been  in  different  periods  of  our 
country  ;  an  explanation  which  shows  that  they  were  delegated 
to  rule  over  their  respective  States,  according  to  established 
principles,  by  the  companies,  sovereigns  arid  people  who  ap- 
pointed them.  No  well  informed  historian  undertakes  to  assert 
that  the  primitive  Governors  of  New  Netherland,  subsequently 
New  York,  were  not  properly  so  because  they  were  strictly 
subordinate  to  the  States  General,  and  then  to  the  West  India 
Company  in  Holland  ;  or  that  the  like  Governors  or  Presidents 
of  Virginia  were  not  really  and  completely  such  officers,  because 
they  derived  their  station  from  the  company  who  owned  their 
portion  of  English  America.  We  might  select  no  small  num- 
ber of  other  parallel  instances  to  confirm  our  position.  The 
two  especially  cited  are  well  known ; — to  the  point,  and  suffi- 
cient for  our  purpose. 

But  here  we  ask,  is  it  true  that  Endicott  was  not  fully  Gov- 


8 

ernor  in  1629,  because  so  entitled  and  empowered  b7  members 
of  the  Company  in  London  ?  If  so,  we  are  reduced  to  the 
necessity  of  disallowing  the  representations  of  our  hitherto 
credible  historians,  who  describe  the  administrations  of  the 
Dutch  and  Virginia  Governors  just  referred  to,  as  rightfully  so 
denominated  ;  we  must  change  our  impressions,  and  while  we 
speak  of  them  as  Governors,  we  must  entertain  a  mental  reser- 
vation which  degrades  them  below  the  level  indicated  by  their 
title,  and  assigns  to  them  an  uncertain  grade  which  no  language 
has  yet,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  writer,  intelligently,  satisfac- 
torily and  truly  defined.  We  are,  therefore,  constrained  to 
grant,  that  the  doctrine  of  subordinacy,  as  here  set  forth,  tends 
to  an  absurdity  ;  proves  far  too  much,  and  consequently  should 
be  rejected  as  unsound,  unsafe,  and  introducing  confusion  into 
the  records  of  our  history.  Of  course,  a  doctrine  of  such  a  cast 
and  character  should  never  be  applied  to  Endicott,  and  thus 
strip  him  of  the  honor  of  being  the  first  Governor  of  the  ter- 
ritory and  population  of  our  Commonwealth. 

There  are  several  particulars  which  bear  on  this  subject  and 
call  for  our  attention  at  the  present  stage. 

To  sink  Endicott  from  the  head  of  the  list  of  our  chief  mag- 
istrates, because  of  subordinacy,  seems  to  imply  that  there  was 
some  essential  difference,  with  reference  to  him  and  Winthrop, 
in  the  mode  of  their  election  and  in  the  principles  of  their 
administration.  But  was  there  in  reality  ?  No  ;  Endicott  was 
chosen  by  freemen  of  the  Company  in  London.  So  was 
Winthrop ;  and  after  the  latter  came  hither,  he  was  rechosen 
by  freemen  of  the  same  corporation,  who  dwelt  here,  and  was, 
in  every  respect,  as  much  subordinate  to  them,  separately 
viewed  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  as  ever  Endicott  was. 

How  was  it  as  to  principles  of  administration  ?  Endicott, 
for  1629,  had  in  his  hands,  as  the  basis  of  his  action,  the 
charter,  designated  in  its  words,  ''Letters  patent,  or  the  dupli- 
cate or  exemplification  thereof,"  with  the  royal  seal.  It  is  true 
that  Mr.  Savage  remarks  concerning  him,  on  the  30th  page 
of  his  late  first  volume — "  He  had  a  commission  from  the 
Company  to  act  as  Governor,  which  was,  of  course  superseded 
by  the  arrival  of  Winthrop  with  the  charter."  Some  readers 
may  construe  this  to  intimate  that  Endicott  did  not  have  the 
charter  for  his  direction.  As  a  caveat  against  such  a  mistake, 


they  will  bear  in  mind  that  he  did  have  it,  not  varying  one  jot 
or  tittle  from  the  one  brought  over  by  his  successor,  as  to  all 
its  requisites  for  the  colonial  legislation,  which  shows,  without 
any  just  contradiction,  that  the  principles  of  government  were 
the  same  for  both  of  them.  Hence,  as  the  cause  instanced  in 
the  outset  of  this  paragraph  has  no  foundation,  its  effect  cannot 
be  equitably  allowed. 

The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Savage,  that  he  never  saw  any 
sufficient  evidence  of  Endicott's  exercising  the  duties  of  Gov- 
ernor in  a  regular  Court  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  no  conclusive 
argument  that  he  did  thus  come  short  of  his  assigned  service. 
It  would  indeed  have  been  a  phenomenon  in  political  economy, 
had  not  various  cases  come  before  him,  which  in  a  colony  of 
three  years'  continuance,  demanded  the  collective  deliberation, 
decision  and  execution  of  himself  and  associates  in  government. 
The  letters  of  Cradock  to  him  show  that  he  had  no  lack  of 
such  business  to  perform,  and  his  well  known  reputation  for 
promptness,  activity  and  faithfulness,  are  a  guarantee  that  he 
did  not  suffer  it  to  be  neglected.  The  natural  inference  which 
most  minds  would  make  relative  to  absence  of  positive  proof, 
if  there  were  none,  that  Endicott  and  his  Court  did  not  omit 
legislation  altogether,  would  be,  that  the  records  of  it  were 
lost,  as  those  of  Salem,  then  the  capital,  were  for  several  years, 
relative  to  its  primitive  municipal  transactions. 

That  Endicott  did  hold  a  General  Court  there,  is  indicated, 
to  my  apprehension,  by  Morton  of  Mount  Wollaston,  who  de- 
scribes, in  his  new  English  Canaan,  being  present  in  such  an 
assembly.  The  account  which  this  narrator  gives,  how  a  force 
was  sent  to  seize  him  and  his  effects,  because  he,  in  the  exhi- 
bition of  his  staunch  attachment  to  the  national  church,  refused 
obedience  to  the  charter  authorities,  is  competent  evidence  that 
they  were  no  drones ;  that  they  were  vigilant  watchmen  of  the 
Commonwealth,  and  adopted  all  needed  measures  in  their  ses- 
sions for  the  regular  management  of  colonial  affairs. 

Further,  the  serious  occurrence  which  involved  the  banish- 
ment of  the  Brownes,  would  naturally  summon  the  majority 
of  the  rulers  together,  demand  and  receive  their  anxious  con- 
sideration and  final  decision.  Had  they  failed  so  to  do,  there 
is  a  moral  certainty  that  the  correspondence  of  the  London 
2 


10 

Court,  which  ensued,  would  have  charged  them  with  a  gross 
violation  of  their  important  trusts,  which  it  did  not. 

Here  we  meet  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Savage,  previously  inti- 
mated. It  follows :  "  Nor  is  there  a  scrap  of  any  record  of 
proceedings  ever  had  under  his  authority."  As  a  necessary 
indication  that  there  was  such  a  record,  we  have  the  subsequent 
information.  It  is  found  in  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Soci- 
ety's Collections,  3  s.,  9  v.,  257  p.  It  is  an  extract  from  a  letter 
of  John  Howes,  in  London,  1633,  bearing  on  the  devices  and 
exertions  already  commenced  at  St.  Jarnes'  for  the  overthrow 
of  our  civil  and  religious  institutions.  It  is,  that  about  twenty- 
two  of  Endicott's  laws  were  recently  laid  before  the  Lords. 
These  acts,  as  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  were  selected  by 
foes  to  our  Plantation  from  a  code  which  contained  not  a  few 
more  applicable  to  the  wants  and  relations  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  not  construed  as  opposed  to  the  laws  of  the  mother  coun- 
try. They  are  the  strongest  proof  that  Endicott  and  others, 
of  a  regularly  constituted  legislature,  however  small,  did  come 
up  to  the  requisitions  for  which  they  were  appointed  by  the 
Company  in  London.  They  thus  exemplified  the  power  be- 
stowed upon  them  expressly  by  the  charter,  "  to  correct,  punish, 
govern  and  rule  all  the  king's  subjects"  within  the  compass  of 
their  jurisdiction.  Of  course  the  mistake,  which  represents 
them  in  a  very  different  attitude,  so  that  they  should  be  looked 
on  as  a  body  of  little  or  no  consequence,  and  thus  their  Gov- 
ernor be  degraded  like  themselves,  rests  on  mere  fiction  and 
not  fact.  It  ought  not,  and  wherever  truth  is  allowed  its  legit- 
mate  sway,  will  not  press  him  down  from  his  right  position. 

Should  the  administration  of  Endicott  be  disparaged,  and 
consequently  his  standing,  as  its  chief  magistrate,  meet  with 
similar  fare,  because  the  number  of  his  assistants  was  not  large? 
To  answer  this  question  as  it  should  be,  we  must  not  look  at 
it  singly  and  separately  from  all  others.  It  is  true  that  the 
Browne's  were  sent  home.  But  there  remained  for  Endicott's 
assistants,  Higginson,  Skelton,  Bright,  Graves,  Sharp,  and  most 
probably  the  three  more  whom  they  were  authorized  to  choose, 
if  not  the  two  additional  ones  whom  the  old  planters,  as  Conant 
arid  his  associates,  were  privileged  to  elect.  In  such  an  emer- 
gency, it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  men  like  the  three  first,  just 


11 

named,  would  despond  and  neglect  to  avail  themselves  of  their 
right  to  supply  deficient  members,  strengthen  their  hands,  and 
thus  support  their  cause. 

From  these  points  we  look  to  Plymouth  Colony.  We  hear, 
we  perceive  not  even  the  whisper  of  a  suspicion,  but  that  the 
rule  of  Carver  was  such  as  to  secure  his  appropriate  rank, 
though  he  had  no  assistant ;  but  that  Bradford,  his  immediate 
successor  was  alike  entitled,  though  he  had  only  one  assistant 
to  1624,  and  then  only  five,  and  was  himself  an  assistant 
to  Robert  Gorges,  the  Governor-General  of  New  England. 
From  this  view,  \ve  turn  to  Massachusetts.  Who  doubts  that 
the  administration  of  Winthrop  was  sufficient  to  afford  a  similar 
distinction  to  him,  though  he  had  only  seven  assistants,  besides 
himself  and  deputy,  in  August,  1630,  and  in  the  same  year  an 
order  was  made,  that  a  major  part  of  less  than  nine  assistants 
might  hold  a  court  and  perform  its  appropriate  business  ?  It 
must  be  confessed  that  then,  of  necessity,  was  a  day  of  small 
things.  But  the  diminutiveness  of  the  age  should  not  be  laid 
to  the  account  of  one  so  as  to  strip  him  of  his  merited  honor, 
while  it  is  not  so  much  as  named  of  others,  to  whom,  in  all 
equity,  it  should  be  alike  applied.  Let  not  prejudice  hold  us 
back  from  dealing  with  an  even  hand. 

The  proceedings  and  language  of  the  General  Court,  or  free- 
men of  the  Company,  convened  in  London,  apply  to  the  ques- 
tion before  us. 

In  1629,  about  February,  they  provide  for  transmitting  to 
Endicott  the  charter  having  the  royal  seal,  and  also  their  own 
seal.  These  he  received  in  due  time.  April  30.  The  Court 
vote  that  the  authorities  of  the  Colony  shall  be  styled  the  "Gov- 
ernor and  Council  of  London's  Plantation  in  the  Massachusetts 
Bay."  They  then  elect  Endicott  to  be  the  said  Governor, 
and  most  of  the  Council,  and  give  instructions  how  the  other 
members  of  it  shall  be  chosen  here.  In  defining  his  powers, 
they  express  themselves  as  follows,  as  entered  on  their  own 
records:  "And  the  said  Governor  at  his  discretion,  or  in  his 
absence  the  deputy,  is  hereby  authorized  to  appoint,  as  oft  as 
there  shall  be  occasion,  and  shall  have  full  power  and  authority, 
and  is  hereby  authorized  from  his  Letters  Patent,  to  make, 
ordain  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome  and  reasonable 
orders,  laws;  statutes,  ordinances  and  instructions,  not  contrary 


12 

to  the  laws  of  the  realm  of  England,  for  the  present  government 
of  our  Plantation  and  the  inhabitants  residing  within  the  limits 
of  this  our  Plantation."  They  order  a  transcript  of  this  to  be 
forwarded  to  Endicott.  On  the  same  day  they  empower  him 
and  his  Council  to  choose  a  Secretary,  and  "  such  other  subor- 
dinate officers  to  attend  them  at  their  Courts."  May  7.  They 
agree  on  the  forms  of  oaths  for  the  Governor,  Deputy  and 
Council  of  the  Colony.  That  for  the  first  of  these  officers, 
they  denominate  "  the  oath  of  the  Governor  in  New  England." 
The  duties  it  required  of  him.  it  required  of  all  his  successors, 
as  upon  an  equal  footing  in  respect  to  rank.  29.  As  the  head 
of  the  General  Court  in  England,  Cradock  addresses  a  letter  to 
him  with  the  superscription,  "  Captain  Jo  :  Endicott,  Esquire, 
Governor." 

Their  subsequent  records  frequently  gave  him  the  last  title. 
In  a  review  of  all  they  said  and  did,  so  far  as  it  has  come  down 
to  us,  there  is  not  a  shade  of  thought  or  expression,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  which  should  lead  any  mind  to  infer,  but  that  while 
they  were  legislating  about  him,  appointing,  addressing  and 
styling  him  Governor,  they  seriously  and  sincerely  meant  to 
apply  the  title  to  him  in  the  highest  colonial  and  fullest  sense. 
It  would  be  wronging  them  as  conscientious  men,  who  were 
ready  to  make  great  sacrifices  for  the  founding  of  a  religious 
commonwealth  on  our  soil,  to  suspect  or  imply  that  they  pur- 
posed to  use  the  term  in  a  double  or  vague  sense,  or  in  any 
form  or  degree  diverse  from  its  proper  signification. 

To  avoid  any  imputation  of  this  kind,  we  must  allow  that 
the  Company,  from  the  spirit  and  letter  of  their  charter,  records 
and  correspondence,  did  purpose  to  have  a  legitimate  Governor, 
in  the  person  of  Endicott,  on  the  premises  of  their  Plantation, 
even  while  they  exercised  authority  at  home  for  the  regulation 
of  their  trade,  and  the  delegation  of  suitable  legislative  powers 
to  such  an  officer  and  his  associates. 

What  does  the  succession  of  Winthrop  to  Cradock,  imply  ? 
To  arrive  at  a  true  answer  to  this  question,  let  us  deal  with 
facts.  Such  an  official  investment  had  all  its  vital  properties 
laid  down  in  the  Charter,  which  made  the  sphere  of  its  imme- 
diate operation  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Old  England.  There 
it  was  allowed  to  give  legal  direction  to  the  affairs  of  the 
Company.  It  was  endowed  with  no  inward  or  outward  quality 


13 

whereby  it  might  leave  the  place  assigned  for  its  exercise,  and 
take  up  its  abode  in  another  land,  and  still  be  essentially  as  it 
had  been  at  its  commencement.  The  Charter  made  England 
as  requisite  for  the  continuance  of  such  investment,  as  it  did 
that  a  competent  number  of  the  Company's  officers  should 
reside  there  while  it  was  in  existence.  This  investment  had 
nought  to  do  with  leaving  the  mother  country,  crossing  the 
ocean,  landing  on  our  soil,  entering  the  Courts  of  our  rulers 
and  causing  them  to  cease  as  though  they  had  never  been. 
No.  In  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  Charter,  we 
discover  MO  liberties  of  this  sort.  That  document  declares  the 
duties  of  the  Company's  officers,  who  were  in  England,  and, 
also,  those  of  their  officers  in  America.  As  to  their  respective 
and  special  services,  it  set  up  a  wall  of  separation  between 
them,  saying,  as  it  were,  to  one  class  of  them,  here  is  your 
allotment,  and  to  the  other,  there  is  yours.  It  holds  forth  not 
even  the  shadow  of  a  license  for  any  of  the  former,  provided 
they  should,  by  change  of  abode,  become  legislatively  connected 
with  the  latter,  to  push  them  aside  and  assume  their  civil  dis- 
tinctions to  themselves,  simply  for  what  they  had  been  in  a 
distant  quarter  of  the  world.  So  it  is  alike  non-committed  in. 
the  other  direction. 

With  his  authority  so  bounded,  we  perceive  nothing  in  the 
several  communications  of  Cradock,  that  he  was,  in  the  least 
degree,  dissatisfied  because  he  was  not  styled  the  first  Governor 
of  the  Colony  as  well  as  first  Governor  of  the  Company  in 
England.  He  evidently  would  have  felt  that  an  attempt  to 
foist  on  him  such  a  double  capacity  was  not  only  unjust  to 
Endicott,  but  also  a  palpable  violation  of  the  charter,  as  well 
as  contrary  to  the  common  usage  of  Corporations  like  the  one 
he  served.  Winthrop,  no  less  susceptible  of  generous  emotions, 
must  have  known  that,  by  a  mere  succession  to  Cradock,  he 
could  be  endowed  with  no  more  honor  or  power  than  so  worthy 
a  predecessor  realized.  He  must  have  perceived  that  when  the 
Arbella  spread  her  sails  to  the  breeze,  and  bore  him  and  his 
friends  towards  America,  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  the  head  of 
the  Company  in  England,  and  wa's  to  be  only  head  of  such 
of  them  as  should  have  their  domicile  in  the  Colony,  arid  thus 
to  be  no  more  nor  less  than  the  successor  of  Eudicott,  in  the 
full  sense  of  a  bona  fide,  charter  Governor,  without  any  let  or 


14 

hindrance  of  hypercritical  distinctions,  never  known  in  their 
day  of  peril  and  toil  for  the  Commonwealth. 

What  did  the  Court  in  London  mean,  when,  on  the  29th 
of  August,  1629,  as  proposed  for  deliberation  the  preceding 
month,  they  voted,  "  that  the  Government  and  Patent  should 
be  settled  in  New  England,"  though  not  finally  decided  upon 
till  several  weeks  afterwards,  because  of  serious  constitutional 
objections?  By  a  misconstruction  of  the  phrase,  here  quoted, 
not  a  few  persons,  as  it  seems  to  me,  have  been  led  to  adopt 
erroneous  conclusions.  They  have  supposed  that  it  involved 
the  necessity  of  making  some  extraordinary  change  in  the 
colonial  polity,  and  of  conferring  on  its  administrators  here  a 
correspondent  elevation.  But  their  misapprehension  may  be 
corrected  by  a  candid  examination  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
movement  was  executed.  The  practical  operation  of  a  theory 
affords  far  better  instruction  as  to  its  nature,  than  many 
speculations  about  it,  however  imaginative  and  ingenious. 

The  settling  of  the  government  here  was  substantially  the 
omission  to  have  its  agents  chosen  by  the  members  of  the 
Company  in  Old  England,  and  the  like  act  performed  by  those 
of  the  same  corporation  in  New  England.  It  secured  to 
Win  thro  p  no  greater  power  than  it  had  already  conferred  on 
Endicott.  It  raised  the  former  not  a  single  line  higher  above 
the  colonists,  than  it  had  the  latter.  It  dealt  with  both  on  the 
same  Charter  principles,  and  imparted  to  them  equal  rank  and 
honor. 

Here  it  may  be  well  to  remark,  that  such  an  exchange  of 
elective  locations  involved  the  nullification  of  the  government 
as  it  existed  under  Cradock,  and  as  required  to  be  continued 
by  the  Charter.  The  following  entry  on  our  General  Court 
records,  of  September  3,  1634,  denotes  an  exception  : 

!<  It  is  ordered,  that  there  shall  be  letters  written  to  these 
gentlemen,  here  under  mentioned  and  signed  by  the  Court  of 
Assistants,  viz  :  Messrs.  George  Harwood,  John  Revell,  Thomas 
Andrews,  Richard  Andrews,  Francis  Kirby,  Francis  Webb, 
George  Foxcroft,  and  Robert  Reave,  to  entreat  them  to  make 
choice  of  a  man  amongst  themselves  to  be  Treasurer  for  a  year 
for  this  Plantation,  as  also  to  give  them  power  to  receive  an 
account  of  Mr.  Harwood,  now  Treasurer,  as  also  to  give  the 
said  Mr.  Harwood  a  full  discharge."  Here  is  indication,  that 


15 

members  of  the  Massachusetts  Company,  who  resided  in 
England,  were  so  far  a  government  of  trade,  remaining  there 
and  connected  with  the  Colony,  as  proposed  in  1629,  as  to 
have  a  Treasurer  for  their  funds,  who  was  about  to  resign  and 
another  to  take  his  place.  How  much  this  may  subtract  from 
the  amount  of  confidence,  entertained  by  some,  that  the  whole 
administration  as  in  being  under  Cradock,  was  moved  over 
with  Winthrop,  and  thereby  swept  away  Endicott's  governor- 
ship, though  a  strange  conclusion  to  my  mind,  they  can  judge 
for  themselves.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  here,  that  if  such 
confidence  were  well  founded,  and  on  account  of  being  at  the 
head  of  the  Company  in  London,  any  man  should  be  denom- 
inated the  first  chief  magistrate  of  Massachusetts,  that  man  is 
Matthew  Cradock,  and  no  other. 

At  this  point,  the  query  meets  us,  what  is  signified  by 
settling  the  Patent  in  New  England?  It  is  essentially  the 
same  as  settling  the  government  here.  This  was  the  creature 
of  that,  and  derived  all  its  civil  and  religious  polity  from  it, 
and  the  very  body  which  it  assumed,  and  the  very  spirit 
through  which  it  existed,  moved  and  acted.  The  establish- 
ment of  the  government  on  our  shores  necessarily  involved  the 
like  action  with  reference  to  the  Charter.  This  action  implies, 
of  course,  what  really  occurred  in  its  premises.  One  of  two 
transcripts  of  that  document,  as  well  known,  was  used  for  the 
control  of  the  Corporation,  while  they  existed  in  England;  but 
it  ceased  to  be  needed  there,  when  they  closed  their  organiza- 
tion and  was  brought  to  our  country.  Another  transcript  of  it 
had,  as  before  noted,  been  previously  sent  to  Endicott  as  the 
guarantee  for  his  colonial  administration,  and  still  remains  in 
the  place  where  its  privileges  were  exercised.  When  he  was 
succeeded  by  Winthrop,  only  one  of  these  transcripts  was 
needed,  and  that  has  been  long  deposited  among  the  State 
archives.  In  such  a  manner  was  the  Patent  or  Charter  settled 
upon  our  soil,  so  as  to  have  no  further  legislative  connection 
with  its  proprietors,  who  dwelt  in  England. 

It  is  well  known,  that  this  transaction,  so  far  as  laying  aside 
the  government  of  the  Corporation  in  that  Kingdom,  has  been 
long  represented  by  some  as  a  fundamental  violation  of  the 
Charter.  Charles  the  I.  and  the  Council  for  New  England,  took 
this  stand.  The  Royal  Council,  under  the  date  of  June  19? 


16 

1679,  write  to  the  Rulers  of  Massachusetts  :  "  Since  the  Charter 
by  its  frame  and  constitution  was  originally  to  be  executed  in 
this  kingdom,  and  not  in  New  England,  otherwise  than  by 
deputation  (as  is  accordingly  practiced  in  all  other  charters  of 
like  nature),  'tis  not  possible  to  establish  that  perfect  settlement 
we  so  much  desire,  until  these  things  are  better  understood." 
Among  the  civilians,  who  have  maintained  the  same  ground, 
was  the  late  Judge,  Joseph  Story.  The  history  of  Hutchinson 
says :  "  It  is  evident  from  the  Charter,  that  the  original  design 
of  it  was  to  constitute  a  corporation  in  England,  like  to  that  of 
the  East  India  and  other  great  companies,  with  powers  to  settle 
plantations  within  the  limits  of  the  territory,  under  such  forms 
of  government  and  magistracy,  as  should  be  fit  and  necessary." 
While  such  objectors  so  held  their  opinion,  they  uttered  no 
doubt  but  that  the  Company  did  elect,  in  London,  a  com- 
petent and  proper  Governor  for  their  Colony,  in  the  person  of 
Endicott. 

We  may  learn  from  the  foregoing  observations,  that  the 
principal  addition  to  the  General  Court  of  the  Plantation,  by 
establishing  the  government  and  patent  here,  was  the  choice  of 
its  chief  magistrate,  instead  of  having  him  appointed  by  similar 
authority  in  England.  But  location,  all  other  things  being 
equal,  makes  no  essential  difference  in  the  grade  of  an  officer. 
Washington  would  have  been  as  much  President  of  our  Re- 
public had  he  been  chosen  in  Boston  as  anywhere  else, 
provided  the  Constitution  allowed  the  practice.  Endicott 
therefore  should,  by  no  mistaken  construction,  suffer  loss  in 
his  rank,  by  being  elected  by  members  of  the  Company  in 
London  instead  of  Massachusetts.  We  feel  assured,  that 
Winthrop  saw  nothing  in  the  settlement  of  the  government 
and  charter  on  our  soil,  which  could  justify  him  in  attempting 
to  exclude  Endicott  from  being  his  constitutional  predecessor 
in  office.  No,  the  enlightened  mind,  the  truthful  conscience, 
and  the  noble  heart  of  Winthrop  would  have  shrunk  from  such 
a  trick  of  political  management. 

How  do  various  historians  represent  the  office  of  Endicott 
prior  to  Winthrop's  arrival?  Josselyn,  Johnson  and  Morton 
speak  of  the  former,  as  being  governor  in  1629,  without  the 
least  qualification,  as  if  he  were  in  any  form  or  degree,  of 
any  lower  grade  than  the  latter.  Prince,  in  his  New  England, 


17 

relates  the  proceedings  of  the  Company  in  London  in  confer- 
ring a  name  upon  their  Colony.  He  then  says,  that  they 
"elect  Mr.  Endicott  Governor,"  and  four  times  in  immediate 
succession,  in  the  same  paragraph,  he  applies  the  like  title  to 
him  in  connection  with  the  transactions  of  such  a  body. 
Prince,  who  was  quick  to  detect  small  as  well  as  great  errors, 
and  particular  to  state  them,  evidently  had  no  misgivings  as  to 
the  common  sense  meaning  of  Governor,  assigned  to  Endicott; 
had  no  doubt  but  that  he  might  most  accurately  and  un- 
reservedly apply  to  him  the  title,  without  being  justly  charged 
with  the  least  particle  of  misrepresentation.  Hutchinson,  while 
narrating  the  Company's  course  of  business,  in  the  same  year, 
says:  "The  names  of  all  the  adventurers  and  the  sums  sub- 
scribed, were  sent  over  to  Mr.  Endicott.  who  was  appointed 
their  Governor  in  the  Plantation.''  A  man,  like  Hutchinson, 
would  never  have  made  this  statement,  had  he  the  least 
suspicion  that  it  contained  a  contradiction  ;  that  it  could  be, 
in  some  anomalous  and  strange  manner,  construed  to  mean  the 
Governor  of  a  Colony  or  State,  and,  at  the  same  instant  and 
in  the  same  relation,  mean  no  such  officer,  but  an  uncertain, 
undefined  something,  without  notifying  his  readers  of  such 
a  perplexed  and  distorted  use  of  the  English  tongue.  It 
comes  to  my  recollection,  distinctly,  that  a  highly  distinguished 
literary  gentleman,  who  had  great  confidence  in  Hutchinson's 
talents,  intelligence  and  correctness,  while  contending  that 
Winthrop  was  the  first  Governor  of  our  Commonwealth, 
appealed  to  that  author  with  evident  assurance,  that  he  would 
support  his  position,  but  was  greatly  disappointed  when  he  saw 
that  his  words  contradicted  his  theory.  And  so  I  believe  will 
many  a  man,  who  has  not  already  committed  himself  in  an 
opposite  direction,  and  who  consults  their  statements,  without 
any  previous  bias,  be  conscious,  that  Hutchinson  and  Prince 
meant  to  be  understood,  that  they  had  no  doubts  but  that 
Endicott  was  in  1629  a  true,  constitutional  and  proper  Governor 
of  Massachusetts,  as  much  as  Winthrop  or  any  of  his  successors 
ever  were  under  the  colonial  charter,  and  consequently  and 
righteously  accounted  the  first  on  the  list  of  such  magistrates 
in  our  Commonwealth. 

"  Fiat  justitia,  mat  ca>lum." 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 
%t\j  '-'  •-•-" 


JAN  16 

WR  IH? 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Makers 
Stockton,  Calif. 

PAT.  IAN  21.  1908 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  la 
date  stamped  below 

I 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FAl 


A    001337379 


